> That's what simulation means

Not really. Utah teapots are simulations of known objects [1]. Flight simulators of known phenomenon.

This is closer to Einstein or Schwarzschild’s theorising.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot

Utah teapot is not real (it cannot hurt you). Despite being based on actual physical things, no Utah teapot will ever hold tea.

A simulation cannot be real. Results obtained from a real object are measurements.

The simulation is an imaginary thing. It is simulating something that is not imaginary.

If I’m simulating a bug, it doesn’t make the bug imaginary. The simulation is immaterial. (I wouldn’t quite call it imaginary. Computers don’t imagine.) But I am simulating a real thing. If, on the other hand, I simulate a bug the size of Paris, I am simulating something imaginary.

All simulations are immaterial. But the things they are simulating can be real or imagined.

I understand, completely agree, and plan to continue digging myself into this pedantic hole anyway thank you very much.

Interesting that a difference of scale alone determined the nature of a thing! More interesting, perhaps, are the number of factors that aren't considered!

Would a simulation of a Peruvian ant on the Tibetan Plateau be real or imagined? What about a simulation of an ant after 20 years of climate change? How about an ant in space or experiencing the Big Bang?

On the other hand, is a simulation of a black hole real or imaginary? What about simulations of the history of the universe involving dark matter and dark energy?

I appreciate a sibling comment's (thanks marshray) suggestion that there exists a spectrum of theoreticalness. Theoreticity?

> the simulation in this paper is theoretical to a much larger degree than that of the teapot.

> If, on the other hand, I simulate a bug the size of Paris, I am simulating something imaginary.

Are you really sure about that?

The original Utah Teapot is definitely real and can hold tea :)

I could certainly use some tea now to wash away the taste of the foot I just pulled from my mouth.

However, as an enjoyer of pedantic semantics, is the real Utah Teapot the physical pot or the model?

I've personally seen the physical teapot in the Computer History Museum.

We routinely make detailed simulations of how such a physical teapot interacts with visible wavelengths of light, specifically for the purpose of comparing them with reality. From this we know that we do in fact have the ability to simulate this aspect of reality to a high degree of precision.

The ability to detect gravitational waves is just recently coming on-line, and we have no example of an actual warp drive to measure, so the simulation in this paper is theoretical to a much larger degree than that of the teapot.

What parent is trying to say is that they are about as similar as the map and the territory

Or you may have heard as it as all models are wrong

Things don't have to be real for them to hurt you.

I'm hurt that you'd imply that.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/skull-cow-isnt-real-it-cant-h...